2000% charged by Lloyds for £1.53 for one day.

chattychappy

I was also irked for the same reasons.

People do forget though that just because something is in the T+Cs doesn't make it lawful. To be lawful, penalty fees are meant to be a reflection of the costs to the injured party. There was a time when CCs charged as much as £30 in such situations. The OFT said that it would presume that charges above £12 are unfair and explicitly stated that this wouldn't be the appropriate amount in all cases. Despite that, £12 has become a defacto standard. The OFT does not make the law - but it did express an intention to challenge charges of more than £12.

So it is always open to anyone to challenge a penalty charge if they think the costs involved to the CC are less than what they have been charged.

Personally I would always keep a record of these things. I think this has the makings of the next scandal followed by a whole new reclaims industry.

Legislation is weighted against the CCs and they have often responded by adopting their own "interpretation" (or simply ignoring the law) only later to be caught out.

Gromitt

dresdendave wrote: »

An aplogetic phone call to Lloyds requesting refund of charges as a goodwill gesture to a longstanding customer would have been more appropriate, certainly no grounds for demanding refunds, official complaints etc.

OP had already done that and the bank refused as this was the second time they paid late in 6 months and assumingly they had already waived the charges the previous time. You would have thought then that OP would setup a reminder to stop it happening again. Instead they filed a complaint and were most upset when all they got compensated for was the call costs (which they didn't have to refund either).

Lets not forget its not £24, it's £12 for late payment and £12 for being over-limit (I assume that happened after interest was added).

System

Banks aren't charities. Yes, the charges are excessive, but they are clearly there in black and white and they are there for everyone, including other banks.

It's like going on a theme park water ride stating 'there is a 99% chance you will get wet' and then start complaining when your mobile phone got soaked in your pocket and stopped working.

If you can't be disciplined enough to pay on time, I suggest you set up a direct debit or better still, don't use a credit card.

chattychappy

teepee83 wrote: »

Yes, the charges are excessive, but they are clearly there in black and white and they are there for everyone, including other banks.

As I say, just because they are in black and white doesn't make them lawful. If they are objectively excessive, then they are unlawful and the CCs shouldn't try to charge them.

The law is there for everyone, including the banks. Not saying they are unlawful, but simply saying they are in the T+Cs doesn't make them enforceable.

jonesMUFCforever

chattychappy wrote: »

As I say, just because they are in black and white doesn't make them lawful. If they are objectively excessive, then they are unlawful and the CCs shouldn't try to charge them.

The law is there for everyone, including the banks. Not saying they are unlawful, but simply saying they are in the T+Cs doesn't make them enforceable.

It has been accepted for some years now that a £12 overlimit fee and £12 late payment fees are fair - and stands to reason legal.
If not somebody would have challenged them in court - perhaps OP could start a case?
Of course she would have to find another way of paying the fees as it looks like this particular card is near its limit.

chattychappy

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

It has been accepted for some years now that a £12 overlimit fee and £12 late payment fees are fair - and stands to reason legal.
If not somebody would have challenged them in court - perhaps OP could start a case?

Well, things are often "accepted" (by some) to be legal for some years until they get challenged:
1) PFI selling (now they are having to refund).
2) CCs refusing to accept cancellations of CPAs, telling you could only cancel via merchants (now they are having to refund).
3) Telling consumers that they are responsible for unauthorised transactions if they were grossly negligence when in fact the CCA1974 limits this to £50.
4) Historically charging whatever they liked for penalties (eg £20/£30 was common. I remember it was £35 on one of my cards.)

£12 came from the OFT and they specifically stated that the amount that would be lawful would depend on individual circumstances - just that they would presume a charge above this would be unfair.

I suspect it is only a matter of time before there is a challenge - though CCs do tend to refund if people make enough of a fuss. If they refund you then you cannot challenge it.

jonesMUFCforever

Well here's OP chance to make a name for herself then!

chattychappy

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Well here's OP chance to make a name for herself then!

Yep! I believe in the case of the £12 thing, it was a law student that having read about the penalty regs in class started an action himself. The OFT got involved later.

bossymoo

The thing is, if they waive it for you, do they then have to waive it for all customers? Or do you want special treatment? If all their CC customers paid under the minimum payment and a day late next month, what do you think would happen? The bank give them all a quick call and say "don't worry mr/mrs/ms we'll sort it for you this time, cos we don't have a life"?

If its a trivial amount, why not just pay it? Set up a minimum payment direct debit and you won't have this problem again.

If someone owed me £50 and gave me £48.47 I'd think they were taking the pee.

Gromitt

bossymoo wrote: »

The thing is, if they waive it for you, do they then have to waive it for all customers?

A number of them do, they realise people make mistakes and they'll waive one set of charges each year. Twice in six months I would expect them decline however, which is what happened here.